IEL TASK FORCE MEETING NOTES 01/04/05

Present: Roxanne Beloit, Ellen Brown, Don Brunner, Karen Driscoll, Joe Dunlap, Sally Grabicki, Marcus Jorgenson, Pat Lamb, Linda McDermott, Mike Mires, Scott Morgan (chair), Joanne Murcar, Linda Powell, Pam Praeger, Jacque Rainer, Dixie Simmons, Colleen Straight, and Linda Uhden.

The meeting came to order at 2:35 p.m. in the Palouse Conference Room at SFCC.

1. Review of December 21 Meeting Notes

December 21, 2004 meeting notes were reviewed as distributed. Jacque Rainer’s summary regarding IEL faculty interests will be appended to the meeting notes and forwarded to the task force group.

2. Business and Industry Training: Training and Education Coordinating Center

Joanne Murcar provided an overview of the Training and Education Coordinating Center (TECC). Joanne’s presentation began with a review of the "Top 10" Things Employers want from Colleges (handout) derived from "How Responsive are we to Employer Training Needs? Employer Attitudes, Perceptions, and Experiences with Washington State Community and Technical Colleges" by Cheryl Reed and Deena Heg. The report was conducted for the state board in 2003. Joanne provided a copy of the report in it’s entirety for reference.

Joanne explained the following:

a. TECC’s mission, which includes:

Single point of contact is the #1 employer issue from the Reed Report. TECC provides that service. This is an important element in whatever is recommended for TECC.

Joe Dunlap noted a void in the district regarding recognition of industry trends and development of high-need programs. TECC could provide a much needed service to the colleges by "incubating" new training programs. Joanne cited the Green Building JSP as an example of TECC developing a high-need program.

The production of "FTE" and lack of process and communication between TECC and the colleges has led to some problems in the past. The current financial arrangements, whereby revenue is shared, is not an incentive to serve the community. The arrangements are not endorsed by the committee and should be reviewed.

Linda McDermott distributed a handout titled, TECC—An Historical Perspective and Policy Statement, Rev. 1998. The handout explains the formation of TECC, levels of coordination and responsibility, and specific roles TECC plays.

TECC has evolved from the single point of entry to training deliverer. Should the marketing function and single point of contract be housed at the district?

In the past, the relationship between TECC and the colleges was viewed as competitive and adversarial. Joe Dunlap suggested that many of the problems could be solved by better defining roles, relationships, the procedures under which CCS operates, and communication among the units.

The potential for TECC to "spin off" credit technical programs to the colleges is viewed as an important incentive. In the past, spin offs from Worker Retraining have occurred.

The current Green Building JSP Project has potential. Joanne suggested, as an example, that a human resource assistant program may also hold potential as a credit program.

 

Pam Praeger suggested that for this approach to be successful, colleges and their faculty must be brought in early in the development process. Marcus Jorgensen sees the need for this type of activity to help college faculty better understand industry trends and job market needs.

Relationships and governance were discussed. The task force group had mixed views on the need for governance, suggesting better communication may be the answer. Communication is an issue—communicating with the workforce deans on each campus may be a way to resolve the problem. A recommendation was made to take issues surrounding governance to the Workforce Council.

Scott Morgan thanked the task force group for their good ideas and suggested that task force members e-mail possible solutions to him.

Scott indicated the agenda for the next meeting (January 18) will focus on credit instruction and student services.

Next meeting: January 18, 2:30-4:30 p.m., SFCC, Falls Conference Room.

The meeting adjourned at 4:31 p.m.